JAMES  S.  HULME,  ESQ, 


LATE  COMMISSIONER  FOR  INVESTIGATING 
THE  AFFAIRS  OF  THE  JOINT  COMPANIES, 

ila-rey,  UcwT'j  '--a 


BY 

A CITIZEN  OP  BURLINGTON. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

L.  R.  BAILEY,  PRINTER. 


< 

. 


‘ 


J 

• ' \ 


t mi 


o 

IL 

<P 


LETTER, 


tA 

C~ 

C* 


i 


fa 


2 

or 


sir  : 

Having  recently  learned  that,  notwithstanding  the  facts  already  published  on 
the  subject,  you  continue  to  assure  those  who  were  once  your  friends,  that  I had 
never  desired  to  see  the  books  and  papers  of  the  Joint  Companies,  and  that  by 
refusing  to  produce  them  you  had  satisfied  both  the  managers  and  myself — and 
having  also  had  reason  to  believe  that  similar  statements  have  been  and  are  being 
made  by  your  associates,  Messrs.  Robertson  and  Wurtz — I am  induced  to  make 
the  following  record  of  the  proceedings  of  yourself  and  them,  in  regard  to  the 
several  demands  for  the  production  of  those  books  and  papers,  and  to  address  it 
directly  to  yourself,  in  order  that  if  any  where  I err  in  my  statements  you  may 
at  once  correct  me. 

The  commissioners  met  late  in  March,  1849.  Prior  to  their  meeting,  I addressed 
a letter  to  them,  through  you,  stating  my  readiness  to  aid  them  in  their  investiga- 
tion, by  all  the  means  in  my  power.  Shortly  after  their  first  meeting,  I visited 
them  at  Bordentown,  and  was  there  assured  that  their  powers  were  full  and  com- 
plete, and  would  enable  them  to  examine  into  the  affairs  of  all  the  minor  compa- 
nies, as  well  as  to  take  all  the  measures  necessary  to  arrive  at  a full  and  complete 
understanding  of  the  proceedings  of  the  managers.  In  my  presence,  Mr.  Bradley, 
the  managers’  agent,  was  told  that  the  books  and  papers  were  in  the  hands  of  the 
commissioners,  to  be  exhibited  to  whom  they  pleased. 

My  first  request  for  the  production  of  the  books  was  made  in  a note  to  your- 
self, of  the  date  of  April  4,  from  which  the  following  is  an  extract : 

“ As  you  are  now  about  to  enter  on  an  examination  of  the  canal  business,  I 
intend  to  pay  you  a visit  before  the  end  of  the  week,  say  on  Saturday,  which 
will  perhaps  be  as  early  as  you  will  be  prepared  for  me.  I think  that  in  a cou- 
ple of  hours’  conversation  with  the  papers  before  you,  I could  enable  you  to  un- 
derstand the  whole  canal  business  thoroughly,  and  thus  save  you  a great  deal  of 
labor,  for  without  proper  explanation  it  must  be  an  almost  inexplicable  mass  of 
words  and  figures.  If,  therefore,  you  could  have  the  collectors’  books  for  1846, 
’7  and  ’8,  and  also  the  contracts  wdth  the  transportation  lines,  and  the  settlements 
with  them  for  the  same  years,  and  then  give  me  a morning  for  examining  them 
with  you,  and  talking  them  over  with  you,  I should  be  very  glad.  It  would  suffice, 
I think,  to  satisfy  you  that  the  charges  against  the  management  can  be  fully  proved. 
I particularly  wish  to  see  the  books  for  ’46.” 

I particularly  request  you,  sir,  to  remark  that  this  letter  was  addressed  to  yourself, 
and  that  it  must  therefore  have  been  in  your  possession  at  the  very  moment  when 
you  asserted  that  l had  never  desired  to  see  the  books  and  papers. 

At  the  appointed  time  I went  to  Bordentown,  but  was  told  that  the  books  called 
for  were  not  there — that  the  commissioners  desired  /or  the  present  to  prosecute  the 
examination  themselves — that  they  wished  to  afford  the  managers  no  excuse  for 

\ 4.1&93 


4 


refusing  the  production  of  papers,  &c.,  &c.,  and  finally  I was  induced  to  leave  with 
them  the  documents  I had  taken  with  me  to  aid  in  the  examination  of  the  books 
which  had  been  called  for.  Here  was  the  first  evasion  by  the  commissioners  of 
my  request  for  the  production  of  the  books  and  papers. 

In  May,  I wrote  to  say  that  I contemplated  leaving  home,  and  was  desirous  to 
finish  the  business  so  Oar  as  I had  any  concern  in  it — that  I wished  to  know  that 
the  commissioners  were  satisfied  of  the  perfect  truth  of  the  charges,  and  that  if  they 
were  not  already  so,  it  was  my  desire  that  I should  at  once  be  afforded  the  oppor- 
tunity to  supply  the  proof,  by  the  books  and  papers.*  To  this  second  demand  for 
production,  you  yourself  brought  me  the  verbal  answer  of  the  commissioners,  to 
the  effect  that  it  was  not  then  convenient  to  do  what  I desired,  but  that  if  I should 
finally  conclude  to  leave  homeland  would  advise  them  of  the  fact,  they  would 
take  measures  for  complying  with  my  request.  Here  was  your  and  their  second 
evasion  of  compliance  with  a demand  for  the  production  of  the  books  and  papers. 

In  June  you  adjourned,  and  did  not  meet  again  until  late  in  September.  Early 
in  October  I received  a request  by  your  secretary  that  I would  come  to  you  at 
Bordentown,  and  he  came  fully  believing  that  the  books  and  papers  were  at  once  to 
be  exhibited  to  me.  It  was,  at  the  moment,  inconvenient  to  go,  yet  on  learning 
the  probability  that  the  books  were  to  be  exhibited,  I determined  to  postpone  an- 
other engagement  that  I might  accompany  the  secretary,  who  had  assured  me 
that  the  books  bore  me  out  in  all  that  I had  said  of  them . On  my  arrival  I 
soon  discovered  that  he  was  not  in  the  secrets  of  the  commissioners,  and  that  so 
far  from  intending  to  exhibit  the  books,  they  had  sent  for  me  for  the  purpose  of 
affording  Mr.  Bradley,  in  whose  possession  the  books  were  not , an  opportunity  to 
deny  the  right  of  producing  the'  said  books,  by  themselves,  in  whose  pos- 
session they  were.  The  books  demanded  were  refused,  and  the  burthen  of  refusal 
shifted  to  the  managers,  and  here  is  found  the  third  refusal  to  produce  them. 

In  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  I had  a private  conversation  with  yourself  and 
the  other  commissioners,  in  which  I stated  my  having  recently  ascertained  that 
not  only  were  the  boats  not  returned,  but  that  where  they  were  returned,  the 
manifests  were  uniformly  fraudulent — that  they  rarely  represented  more  than  a 
third  of  the  cargo — and  that  if  certain  books,  which  I then  designated,  were  pro- 
duced, I would  enable  the  commissioners  to  satisfy  themselves,  and  that  conclu- 
sively, that  the  frauds  upon  the  revenue  were  greater  than  I had  ever  imagined. 
The  suggestion,  however,  met  no  approbation,  and  for  the  simple  reason,  as  I sup- 
pose, that  the  proof  offered  was  of  such  a character  as  effectually  precluded  the 
idea  that  past  errors  were  not  fraudulent  but  “ only  defective.”  Here  was  the 
fourth  refusal  to  produce  the  books  ^nd  papers.  Recollect,  I pray  you,  that  you 
were  party  to  each  and  every  one  of  these  refusals,  and  then  recollect- that  you 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  asserting  that  I never  desired  to  see  the  books  and  papers 
of  the  companies,  and  that  you  had  satisfied  both  parties  by  refusing  to  produce 
them. 

On  the  10th  of  October,  I made  a written  demand  for  the  production  of  certain 
books  and  papers,  to  be  examined  under  the  inspection  of  yourself  and  your  asso- 
ciates, pledging  myself  to  establish  by  them  the  truth  of  the  charges  against  the 
managers.  On  the  25th  of  that  month,  I received  a refusal  to  produce  them,  signed 
by  Judge  Robertson.  Here  was  refusal  No.fve. 

On  the  29th,  I demanded  to  know  the  reason  of  the  managers  for  permitting 
them  to  be  refused.  By  a letter  dated  November  1,  compliance  with  my  demand 
was  denied. 

On  the  following  day,  November  2, 1 reiterated  my  claim  to  have  the  books  and 


* Having  mislaid  the  copy  of  this  letter,  I quote  it  from  memory. 

i 


5 


papers  produced,  and  also  reiterated  the  declaration  of  my  ability  to  prove  by  them 
the  fraudulent  character  of  the  transactions  of  the  managers  with  the  state  and  the 
stockholders,  but  to  this  demand  no  reply  was  furnished.  Here  was  refusal  No, 
six. 

Had  I entertained  the  slightest  doubt  of  my  ability  to  prove  the  truth  of  the 
charges  I had  made,  and  had  I therefore  not  really  desired  to  see  the  books,  my 
purpose  would  now  have  been  completely  answered.  The  production  of  the  books 
had  been  repeatedly  demanded,  and  as  repeatedly  refused,  and  I of  course  was  in 
no  way  responsible  for  the  result  at  which  the  commissioners  might  arrive.  I 
might  therefore  well  stand  where  I had  been  placed  by  the  combined  action  of  the 
managers  and  commissioners.  So  different,  however,  as  you  well  know , were 
my  feelings  on  the  subject,  that  on  the  13th  November,  I addressed  you  a private 
letter , remonstrating  against  the  course  of  yourself  and  your  colleagues  in  denying 
me  the  right  to  see  the  books  by  aid  of  which  the  charges  were  to  be,  and  could 
be,  established.  You  were,  as  I told  you,  trying  me  behind  my  back,  having  shut 
me  out  of  court  and  denied  me  the  right  of  seeing  books,  papers  or  witnesses,  and 
1 desired  to  know  if  you  would  consider  it  justice  if  such  a course  were  to  be  pur- 
sued towards  yourself.  That  no  doubt  may  exist  as  to  the  precise  character  of  this 
letter,  a copy  of  it  is  here  given. 

“ dear  sir  : 

“ I have  been  wishing  to  see  you,  but  as  we  may  not  soon  meet,  I will  put  on 
paper  what  I had  to  say. 

“ The  managers  are  anxious  to  have  a certificate  that  they  have  been  very 
careless — that  they  have  made  many  blunders — and  they  w<  uld  not  object  to 
your  finding  them  indebted  to  the  state,  and  largely  so,  provided  only  that  you 
did  not  certify  that  it  was  done  with  fraudulent  intent.  From  the  remark  you 
made  to  me  the  other  day,  I was  led  to  believe  that  the  commissioners  did  not 
propose  to  say  that  the  errors  were  intentional,  and  the  confident  assurances  now 
given  by  the  managers  to  their  friends  seem  to  confirm  that  view.  Nevertheless, 
the  commissioners  have  a letter  from  me  in  which  I say  that  if  they  will  show 
me  the  books,  I will  show  them  that  the  same  thing  has  been  done  from  year  to 
year,  and  is  done,  as  I believe,  to  the  present  hour.  Would  it  be  right  under 
such  circumstances  to  make  such  a report? 

“I  asked  the  commissioners  in  May  last,  to  look  at  the  Canal  books  of  ’46 
and  ’47,  and  to  send  for  me  if  they  were  not  satisfied.  1 told  them  that  I wa3 
prepared  to  show  them  all  that  was  needed  to  me  to  prove,  and  that  I wished  the 
thing  off  my  mind.  You  assured  me,  from  them,  that  they  would  do  what  I 
desired,  yet  it  has  never  been  done.  To  this  moment  l am  in  perfect  ignorance 
of  everything,  and  likely  so  to  remain  until,  in  common  with  all  the  world,  I 
shall  read  your  report;  and  yet  for  six  months  I have  been  ready  in  one  hour  to 
prove  all  l have  said.  Is  this  right?  Would  you  think  it  so  were  our  position 
changed?  I think  not. 

“ l am,  in  effect,  being  tried  in  my  absence.  Offer  you  what  evidence  I might, 
it  would  be  met  by  apologies  and  excuses,  the  falsehood  of  which  I could  show 
in  five  minutes,  but  which  it  miglft  not  be  in  your  power  to  see.  I know  the 
strength  of  the  case  in  my  own  hands,  for  I know  that  they  cannot  deceive  me, 
and  that  they  know  as  well  as  I.  They  could  not  offer  me  an  excuse  of  any 
kind,  the  falsehood  of  which  I could  not  expose— but  I know  that  there  is  no  man 
but  myself  that  could  do  so,  and  yet  I am  shut  out  of  court  as  completely  as  if  I 
were  not  in  any  way  interested  in  the  result.  I confess  to  you  that  this  is  not 
the  justice  that  I expected  when  the  commission  was  named.  I expected  a fair 
stand-up  fight  with  the  managers,  and  was  prepared  for  it.  As  it  is,  I stand  to 
be  shot  at,  with  no  chance  of  returning  a shot  of  any  kind.  If  the  commissioners 


6 

are  not  prepared  to  certify  that  I am  right,  they  should  afford  me  the  opportunity 
to  show  them  that  I am  so. 

“ I would  be  glad  to  have  some  conversation  with  you  when  you  pass  through 
here  on  Monday  or  Tuesday,  and  if  you  will  let  me  know  when  you  will  be  here, 
will  arrange  to  be  at  home.  “ Yours  very  respectfully, 

“HENRY  C.  CAREY. 

“ Burlington , November  13,  1849.” 

To  this  letter  I received  the  following  reply,  to  which  I would  desire  to  call 
the  attention  of  every  Jerseyman,  as  to  a masterpiece  of  evasion : 

“ Burlington , November  21. 

“ RESPECTED  FRIEND  : 

“ I received  your  letter  dated  a few  days  back,  but  not  having  been  to  Borden- 
town  since  I last  saw  you,  having  been  otherwise  engaged  for  the  last  two  weeks, 
I have  called  to  see  you  to-day  on  my  way  to  Bordentown,  but  not  finding  you  at 
home,  leave  this  note.  With  regard  to  the  matter  alluded  to  in  your  letter,  1 have 
had  so  much  to  agitate  my  mind  since  receiving  it,  that  I have  not  given  it  any 
consideration,  but  will  look  it  carefully  over  after  1 get  to  Bordentown. 

“ Very  respectfully,  J.  S.  H.” 

That  your  mind  was  much  agitated  about  that  time,  I do  not  doubt.  You  were 
about  to  make  a great  experiment  on  the  credulity  of  the  people,  and  at  the  moment 
of  preparation  I had  appealed  to  your  sense  of  justice,  but  your  agitation  was  such 
that  after  more  than  a week  had  elapsed,  ypu  had  given  the  appeal  no  “ consider* 
} ation.”  You  would  “ look  it  over”  at  Bordentown,  and  there  you  mustcertainly 
have  looked  it  over  very  carefully,  for  within  twenty  days  of  the  date  of  that 
letter , and  with  it,  most  probably,  in  your  pocket,  you  asserted  to  one  of  the  most 
respectable  men  in  the  county  that  1 had  never  desired  to  see  the  books,  and  that 
in  refusing  to  produce  them  you  had  satisfied  both  parties.  If  you  desire  evidence 
that  you  did  make  this  statement,  and  under  these  circumstances,  it  can  be  pro- 
duced. 

It  would  appear  scarcely  necessary  to  add  anything  further,  and  yet  you  would 
hardly  occupy  your  true  place  in  the  public  estimation  were  I to  stop  here,  for  there 
is  yet  much  to  add. 

Having  properly  prepared  the  public  mind  for  the  reception  of  your  extraordi- 
nary Report,  it  was  at  length  permitted  to  come  before  the  world  in  the  month  of 
February,  1850,  when  the  Legislature  had  nearly  completed  its  business, and  when, 
of  course,  examination  of  the  character  of  your  statements  had  become  entirely 
impossible.  Some  days  after  its  appearance,  the  Trentonian , the  managers’  organ, 
stated  that,  “the  commissioners  had  soon  discovered  that  I did  not  desire  a fair 
investigation” — that  an  examination  of  the  books  and  papers  had  been  tendered 
to  me — that  I had  demanded  that  they  should  be  given  into  my  possession,  and 
finally,  that  I had  fled  from  the  sight  of  them.  You,  sir,  were  thus  quoted  as 
having  witnessed  these  facts,  and  you  were  at  that  moment  in  Trenton,  near  the 
office  of  the  Trentonian,  and  it  is  possible  even  that  you  may  have  authorized  the 
use  of  your  name  on  this  occasion.  Whether  you  did  so  or  not,  it  is  perfectly 
certain  that  neither  you,  nor  Messrs.  Robertson  or  Wurtz,  ever  contradicted  it, 
having  apparently  been  willing  that  it  should  pass  throughout  the  state  for  truth, 
and  on  your  authority.  You  were  willing  that  the  grossest  falsehoods  should 
pass  current  in  relation  to  me,  and  to  stand  godfather  to  them,  and  up  to  this  hour 
nine-tenths  of  the  readers  of  the  Trentonian  believe  that  that  article  was  author- 
ized by  you  and  your  colleagues,  and  contains  a true  statement  of  facts,  and  yet  at 
the  moment  of  its  publication  you  probably  had  in  your  pocket  my  letter  remon- 


l 


7 


< 

I 


strating  with  yourself  in  relation  to  shutting  me  out  from  the  sight  of  books,  papers, 
witnesses,  evidence,  everything  in  short,  while  placing  the  managers’  agent,  Mr. 
Bradley,  on  the  bench  with  yourselves,  to  see  everything,  know  everything,  assert 
everything,  and  deny  everything,  as  might  suit  the  purpose  of  your  friends  the 
managers. 

Allow  me  now  to  ask,  Was  this  the  conduct  of  a man  of  truth  or  honor] 
Would  any  man  possessing  a single  spark  of  either,  suffer  a gross  falsehood  to  be 
publicly  circulated,  on  his  authority,  without  as  publicly  contradicting  it,  or,  if  he 
did  so,  would  he  not  thus  make  himself  responsible  for  it?  Have  you  not  then 
made  yourself  responsible  for  the  enormous  falsehoods  of  the  Trentonian , and  are 
not  your  associates  in  the  commission  equally  responsible  for  them  ? I pray  you 
to  consult  any  man  of  honor  in  the  state,  telling  him  that  you  quietly  permitted 
your  names  to  be  used  to  give  sanction  to  a series  of  infamous  falsehoods,  and  take 
his  opinion  whether  you  are  or  are  not  to  be  held  as  fully  responsible  for  them  as 
if  you  had  written  them  yourselves.  Inform  him,  too,  that  for  months  before  its 
appearance  you  had  been  in  the  habit  of  assuring  your  friends  that  I had  never 
desired  to  see  the  books,  and  that  in  refusing  to  produce  them  you  had  satisfied 
both  parties,  and  take  his  further  opinion  on  the  subject.  Add  to  it,  that  you  your- 
self told  me  in  excuse  for  not  producing  them,  that  your  colleagues  doubted  their 
powers,  while  Judge  Robertson  assured  his  friends  that  it  was  his  colleagues  that 
doubted  their  powers — and  then  let  him  decide  whether  or  not  your  conduct  has 
been  that  of  a man  of  truth  and  honor,  and  whether  the  statements  in  your  Report 
are  entitled  to  any,  even  the  slightest  consideration. 

I am  perfectly  aware  that  you  have  assured  your  former  friends  that  no  cor- 
ruption had  been  used  towards  yourself  or  your  fellow  commissioners,  to  induce 
you  to  whitewash  the  managers,  but  am  also  aware  that  you  have  given  to 
those  same  persons  equally  positive  assurances  that  I never  desired  to  see  the 
books,  and  that  you  gave  these  assurances  while  you  had  in  your  pocket  my  let- 
ter of  remonstrance  at  the  injustice  that  you  were  doing  me  in  not  producing  them 
— and  I confess  to  you  that  I see  no  reason  for  believing  one  statement  more 
than  the  other.  You  changed  your  opinions  greatly  as  to  both  your  powers  and 
your  duties,  between  April  and  October,  and  as  no  public  reason  is  recorded  by 
your  secretary,  we  must  suppose  the  change  to  have  been  the  result  of  a private 
understanding  with  the  managers.  Had  no  such  understanding  existed,  how  could 
you,  with  the  following  great  fact  staring  you  in  the  face,  have  whitewashed 
them? 

It  had  been  clearly  shown  that  between  1838  and  1846,  while  the  tonnage  of 
the  boats  trading  on  the  canal,  and  carrying  superior  merchandise,  had  trebled  in 
amount,  the  business  accounted  for  to  the  state  had  fallen  off  nearly  one-half 
and  that  no  question  should  remain  in  regard  to  this  important  fact,  the  names  of 
the  vessels  and  the  number  of  trips  made  by  them,  were  given.  Captain  Stock- 
ton,  president  of  the  company,  and  Mr.  Neilson,  treasurer,  were  both  concerned 
in  the  Napoleon  Company,  and  in  that  capacity  were  accustomed  to  receive  the 
earnings  of  the  boats,  and  had  of  course  good  reason  to  know  how  many  boats 
passed  and  how  much  freight  was  carried;  and  if  any  doubt  existed,  they  could 
have  verified  the  truth  of  my  statements  in  a single  hour,  for  your  secretary 
assured  me  that  the  books  had  borne  me  out  in  all  I said  of  them.  Instead  of 
doing  this,  Messrs.  Stockton  and  Neilson  employed  Mr.  Bradley,  and  paid  him 
liberally , for  drawing  up  a certificate  that  the  boats  carried  manifests,  that  the 
hooks  were  beautifully  kept,  and  that  there  was  no  truth  in  what  I had  said,  and 
then  induced  their  friends,  Messrs.  King,  Pennington  and  Parker,  to  sign  it. 
You  came  soon  after  to  examine  the  same  books  from  which  Messrs.  Stock- 
ton,  Neilson,  and  Bradley  had  concocted  that  certificate,  and  you  found  that  it 


s 


was  false  in  every  panJ— -that  numerous  boats  carried  no  manifests,  and  that  in  a 
single  year  there  had  passed  under  the  eyes  of  Messrs.  Stockton  and  Neilsom 
almost  two  boats  per  day  for  every  working  day  in  the  year,  that  had  been 
“ dropped  out”  of  the  returns  sworn  to  by  the  treasurer , and  certified  upon  honor 
by  Captain  Stockton,  the  person  really  responsible  for  the  correct  management 
of  the  concerns  of  the  company.  It  was  therefore  clear  that  Captain  Stockton 
and  Mr.  Neilson  had  knowingly  and  wilfully  come  into  court  with  a false  state- 
ment  of  facts  meant  to  cover  frauds,  and  that  they  had  thereby  acknowledged 
their  previous  acquaintance  with  these  enormous  frauds  upon  the  state  and  stock- 
holders, and  yet  with  this  great  fact  before  you,  you  certified  that  the  returns 
were  “ not  fraudulent”  but  only  “defective!”  After  this,  need  we  wonder,  sir, 
that  you  should  have  been  desirous  that  the  world  should  be  taught  to  believe  that 
I had  fled  from  the  sight  of  the  books  and  papers?  Assuredly  not.  Neither 
should  we  he  surprised  that  your  Report  is  held  to  be  of  no  more  authority  than  is 
that  signed  by  Messrs.  King,  Pennington  and  Parker,  although  given  as  the  result 
of  almost  a year’s  labor,  at  the  cost  of  many  thousand  dollars  to  the  state. 

If,  in  what  I have  said,  now  say,  or  may  in  future  say,  I do  you  any  injustice,5 
you  will  find  me  at  all  times  ready  to  meet  you,  with  the  books  and  papers  that 
were  for  eleven  months  in  your  possession,  before  honest,  intelligent  and  indepen- 
dent men,  there  to  prove  the  truth  of  what  I say,  or  pay  the  forfeit  in  case  I fail — 
or  if  you  and  your  colleagues  prefer  a court  of  justice,  1 have  only  to  say  that  I am 
ready  for  any  course  that  will  insure  the  production  of  the  books  and  papers,  and 
will  meet  you  and  them  when  and  how  you  please. 

I am,  sir,  with  due  respect. 

Yours, 

HENRY  C.  CAREY. 
Burlington , June  24,  1851. 

P.  S. — Since  writing  the  above  I have  learned  that  Mr.  Bradley,  the 
author  of  the  remarkable  mass  of  falsehoods  commonly  known  as  the 
Messrs.  King,  Pennington  and  Parker,  and  the  assistant  to  yourself  and  your 
brother  Commissioners  in  the  selection  of  the  materials  that  might  most  safely  be 
used  in  the  Report  to  the  Legislature,  has  been  rewarded  for  his  services  by  a 
seat  at  the  Board  of  Management  of  the  joint  companies.  Such  being  the  case, 
may  we  not  hope  speedily  to  see  the  signers  of  Mr.  Bradley's  second  Report — 
to  wit,  yourself  and  Messrs.  Robertson  and  Wurtz,  similarly  rewarded?  The 
laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,  and  you  have  certainly  earned  this,  and  much  more , 
at  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Stockton,  Stevens  and  Neilson.  Republics  are  said  to 
/ be  deficient  in  gratitude,  but  I trust  you  may  find  it  otherwise  in  regard  to  the 
Railroad  Kings  of  New  Jersey, 


largely 

Report 


